Clicky

Immigration

Monday, December 26, 2011

It's the most ridiculous and uncontroversial issue in the world, but leave it to a liberal/Democrat to make it serious and controversial. According to them, demanding an official picture I.D. to vote "disenfranchises" poor people, particularly poor minorities.

How? No freaking idea.

But this, apparently, is why most Republicans -- nay, most Americans -- believe that voter I.D. is just plain common sense.

Because it is.

Think of all the things you have to do in your lives that require an official photo I.D.: from driving a car to boarding an airplane to renting a video to borrowing a library book to buying a bottle of liquor or pack of cigarettes. I've never heard of a single example of a minority, poor or otherwise, complaining about being barred from any of these activities because access to such I.D.'s were financially or otherwise prohibitive.

Yet for some reason, the notion that engaging in the very important civic activity of voting should require a proper state issued and most likely free (i.e., taxpayer-funded) voter I.D., is raaaacist. Right?

Wrong, according to liberal/Democrats who never waste a moment poisoning an important issue with wholly unsubstantiated claims of discrimination against minorities and other poor people.

As the 2012 presidential election approaches, Eric Holder, arguably the most despicable and politically abusive Attorney General in U.S. history, is playing the worn out race card to prevent states from implementing voter I.D. An editorial in last Friday's WSJ reads in part:

The Obama Administration's re-election mobilization continues: Witness Eric Holder's attempt to play the race card and perhaps twist the law in a campaign against voter identification laws.

In the Attorney General's telling, the movement in the states to require voters to show some ID is a revival of minority disenfranchisement a la Jim Crow. A growing number of minorities, he said in a speech last week, are now worried about "the same disparities, divisions and problems" that beset the country in 1965 and "many Americans, for the first time in their lives . . . now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up" to the promise of democracy for all.

If you haven't heard about this national crisis, perhaps that's because you don't travel in Mr. Holder's political circles. He is merely repeating the howls of groups like the NAACP and the George Soros-funded Brennan Center, which claim without evidence that voter ID laws hurt minorities. ...

Mr. Holder says the Civil Rights Division led by Thomas Perez will review the policies and impartially "apply the law." If that's true, Mr. Perez's job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court likewise ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional.

The court's liberal lion, then-Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote for the majority that Indiana's law "is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." Indiana offered free voter ID cards to all citizens, so the inconvenience of picking up an ID at the Department of Motor Vehicles wasn't an undue burden and was reasonably balanced by the state's interest in reducing fraud, Justice Stevens wrote.

That isn't good enough for Mr. Holder, who says his department's priority is to "expand the franchise." But expand it for whom, exactly? The vast majority of voters already have the necessary photo ID, which they need to get through airport security or register for a grocery-store savings card.

Of course it's not good enough for Holder, or any liberal/Democrat because the whole issue is based on a lie. In other words, they're all F.O.C.

Directly related to this lie about "minority voter suppression" is another thing Democrats are F.O.C. about: Voter fraud. This crime, libs/Dems will tell you, is a Republican tactic. You all remember the Bush-Gore fiasco of 2000, right? How did Bush ultimately win? Republican voter fraud. But that wasn't enough. When Bush won decisively in 2004 against John Kerry, how did the Dems explain that? Republican vote fraud.

And in 2010, Obama's tight buds at ACORN -- i.e., Democrats -- have been convicted in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Washington state, and elsewhere.

And need we rehash the way the bitter partisan Democrat Al Franken squeezed his way into the Senate for Minnesota in 2008?

Make no mistake: Democrat opposition to voter I.D. is all because it makes voter fraud significantly more difficult to get away with. And Democrats need fraudulent votes to win elections. They need felons to vote. They need illegal immigrants to vote. They need dead people to vote. And they apparently need Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler to vote as well. All the while accusing Republicans of engaging in voter fraud!

So pardon me for saying so, Eric Holder, but you and your race-baiting minions of liberals/Democrats are F.O.C.

Monday, November 14, 2011

This is a follow-up from an earlier story. On May 5, 2010 a high school assistant principal in California prohibited students from wearing shirts displaying the American flag because he feared it would incite violence from offended Mexican students. Yes, you read that right.

Don't try to simmer down just yet. Here's The Great One last Friday -- Veteran's Day -- discussing the ruling. The second of the two clips is really moving: it contains comments from four callers, two of whom are Hispanic themselves and are thoroughly disgusted by the threat of violence from the Mexican students, the action of the assistant principal, and the decision of the federal judge.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Yesterday I parked at a Starbucks and while walking to the place noticed a car (no, it was not a Prius) with the stupidest bumper sticker ever. Actually it had two: The first was that COEXIST one which is also stupid. Because the problems we have today aren't because of Christians fighting with Muslims fighting with Jews fighting with Buddhists fighting with Shintos fighting with Zoroastrians fighting with athiests. The problem is freaking Muslims and left-wing socialist-Marxist secular-"progressive" athiests.

But I digress. The other bumper sticker was the real stupid one. It said, "It won't kill you to learn Spanish."

Really???

How about, "It won't kill you to either (1) learn the language of the country you have chosen to immigrate to or (2) go the %$*# back home.

Actually, it's not insensitive and mean-spirited at all. It's well known that people who come over to this country and don't learn the language are much more likely to be less financially sound, less educated, and less involved in American society at large. Learning the language of your new country opens up doors otherwise closed to you.

Then again, such people end up more dependent on government and expect handouts, and therefore wind up a reliable Democrat voting bloc.

And you wonder why Democrats (and many Republicans!) don't like declaring English the official language of the U.S. It has nothing to do with decency or sensitivity and everything to do with politics.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

At the close of the 111th Congress, America is deeply in the bog of Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Unfortunately, the broken chains of the Constitution have failed to contain the federal government.

By way of review, let’s take a stroll through the junkyard of constitutional violations that have been painted fresh by President Obama and the 111th Congress. . ...

Friday, November 19, 2010

On Wednesday's first hour, Mark was on a roll, discussing Obama and the lame duck Congress's last ditch effort to pull out all the stops - and czars and agencies - and push as much regulation and taxation down our throats until it's filling up our intestines and coming out our tuchases: Tax increases, cap and tax, tax increases, amnesty (oh excuse me, path to citizenship) for illegals so they can vote for you-know-who in the 2012 election, and tax increases.

Did I mention tax increases "For what?" Mark asks. To satisfy the federal government's insatiable appetite for spending your money and grabbing more unconstitutional power for themselves.

For that reason, at the end of the second clip Mark makes a bold suggestion to the incoming Republican House: To propose an amendment to limit government spending to a fixed percentage of the GDP. Sounds good by me.

DENAIR, Calif., Nov. 11 (UPI) -- Officials in a California school district said a middle school student was told to take a U.S. flag off his bike to avoid “racial tension.”

Denair Unified School District Superintendent Edward Parraz said Cody Alicea, 13, was told not to fly the U.S. flag from his bike while at Denair Middle School after complaints from other students, KCRA-TV, Sacramento, Calif., reported.

“(The) First Amendment is important,” Parraz said. “We want the kids to respect it, understand it, and with that comes a responsibility.”

Gee, by that logic, shouldn’t the leftoids have been telling Rauf the Radical Imam ix-nay on the osque-may near Ground Zero, in order to avoid “racial tension”? (I know, I know, I know. How silly of me to try to find logic, principle, and consistency in liberalism!)

Parraz said racial tensions boiled over at the school this year around the Cinco de Mayo holiday.

Then why didn’t you ban Cinco de Mayo, Mr. Parraz? If your goal is to avoid “racial tension,” then you should have. (I know, I know, I know. How silly of me to try to find logic, principle, and consistency in liberalism!)

“Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they’ll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don’t really want,” Parraz said. “We want them to appreciate the cultures.” …

First of all, it’s bad enough when some prepubescent Miley-Cyrus-worshipping, texting-addicted, Justin-Beiber-obsessed schoolgirl says, “you know … you know … you know” twenty times in one sentence. But really, this is a district superintendent?

Second, here’s what I would do if there are Hispanic students at this school who might become racially incensed at the sight of an American flag: I would sit them down in a room, tell them that they are in the United States of America. And in this country we have freedoms. And at the top of that list is freedom of speech, and especially the freedom to display the flag of one’s own country.

If you have a problem with any of this, then that is your problem, not theirs. American citizens will not have their free speech rights denied because you have an unhealthy chip on your shoulder. If you still have a problem with it, then go home, grab your ungrateful parents who clearly didn’t instill love for this the best and freest country on the planet, and go the f**k back where you came from! (And take your worthless superintendent with you!)

And just to be really snarky, I’ll tell them all this in English!

Oh, I’m sorry, was that too insensitive? Too intolerant? Too mean-spirited? Tough. Get over yourself. It’s the truth and the sooner you realize it, the better you’ll be.

Sunday, August 01, 2010

In honor of today, the 22nd anniversary of El Rushbo’s national radio show, here are three classic clips downloaded and kept over the years.

The first clip, from Monday, June 7, 2004, is the first half of a tribute to Ronald Reagan, who had passed away over the weekend. Even though it was merely the first term of George W. Bush’s presidency, Rush’s eulogy made you really miss the Gipper. Now, during this dark age of the oppressive Constitution-shredding liberty-squelching and wealth-stealing triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid, is Reagan ever more missed.

The second clip is from April 26, 2007. The economy was still pretty robust, unemployment impressively low, and record tax revenue coming in, thanks in no small part to those eeeevil Bush tax cuts. That, Rush shows us, did not stop the lib Bush-hating media to spin the news as negatively as humanly possible.

Finally, the third clip, also from April, 2007, is from an immigrant from Peru. She used to believe the hate-America tripe of the liberati - which was eerily similar to the hate-America trip she would get from the Hugo Chavezes and other socialist demagogues of South America. This is, until she came across Rush's TV show one night.

Yeah, cuz nothing says “Support the poor mistreated illegal aliens” like interrupting a baseball game waving the flag of the country they came here from!

NEW YORK - Two men carrying Mexican flags in protest of Arizona’s immigration law ran into the outfield during the seventh inning of the New York Mets’ game against the Arizona Diamondbacks on Friday night at Citi Field.

The men were apprehended by security fairly quickly without much incident. …

“It’s not going to distract me. I’m here to play baseball,” Diamondbacks interim manager Kirk Gibson said after his team’s 9-6 victory over the Mets. “You have an opinion, I have an opinion. They have the right to say what they want, but it’s no distraction.”

Sure, liar. I’m sure you’d say the same think if a guy trespassed on the field with an American flag yelling for illegals to get out our country.

As the trespassers were taken from the field people in the stands started chanting "USA, USA."

Hells, yeah. And if I were there, I would’ve been one of them.

This is proof that these people have no love for this country. All they care about is the free health care, free school, and all the other welfare goodies. It’s all gimme gimme gimme all the time. And G0d forbid a true leader like AZ gov’r Brewer says, “No,” you wave YOUR country’s flag!

Get this ingrate the heck off the field and the heck out of this country. I don’t have one drop of sympathy for your pathetic @$$.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labor.

If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely.

If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.

If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally you will be jailed.

If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from again.

If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed.

If you cross the Mexican borders illegally you will jailed for two years.

If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into political prison to rot.

If you cross the United States border illegally you get:

1. A job2. A driver's license3. A Social Security card4. Welfare5. Food stamps6. Credit cards7. Subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house8. Free education9. Free health care10. A lobbyist in Washington11. Billions of dollars in public documents printed in your language12. Millions of servicemen and women who are willing to—and do—die for your right to the ways and means of our Constitution13. And the right to carry the flag of your country—the one you walked out on—while you call America racist and protest that you don't get enough respect.

Monday, July 26, 2010

One thing we’ve heard a lot since President Golden Calf took office is that his opposition represents the “Party of No.” There’s no principled reason (as one liberal friend phrased it last year) for this stubborn opposition. As long as Obama is in power, the GOP is mainly going to say “No” on everything. Even as recently as last week, Obama accused nay-voting Republicans of obstructing change. This was as he signed into law the Dodd-Frank bill—named after the two crooks who were directly responsible for the housing crash and who, as is the rule in the Democrat Party, were rewarded by given the privilege of spearheading the wreck-tifying 2,400-page piece of cr@p.

And when Obama’s critics (a.k.a. regular Americans) aren’t being called “the Party of No,” they’re being accused of not being for anything. “They’re not for anything, these tea-bagging racist Republicans! They’re just against everything! Against hope! Against change! Against little cute kittens and puppies!” Etc.

Don’t believe the hype. For one thing, I’ll be the first to admit the “Party of No” moniker is essentially accurate. But the reasons are hardly unprincipled, or even racially charged as we’ve heard ad nauseam. The GOP for the most part says “No” and even “Hell, no!” for very principled reasons: Because it’s the right thing to do. Plain and simple. The failed “stimulus” bill? Hell no! The disastrous liberty-sucking health (s)care bill? Hell no! And now the economy-squeezing financial de-form bill? Hell no again.

As long as this human wrecking ball of a president is in office, and as long as the Democrat Party controls Congress, I am proud to be a member of the Party of No.

Now let’s get to that “We’re not for anything” meme. That’s a lie. We are for lots of things. And it’s not—as Obama’s sycophants will have you believe—putting blacks at the back of the bus and women back in the kitchen blah blah blah. What we conservatives/Republicans/tea partiers are for is restoring America to be closer to its founding principles. Why? Because they worked! Not perfectly, naturally; nothing human-made is perfect. But light years better than this Marxist utopia the Obamaniacs in power have in store for us, that’s for sure.

If you have been wondering what us on the right are actually for, or you are on the right and have had a frustrating time explaining it to a lefty, this piece ought to help you out. This conservative manifesto as it were was written back in February:

I am a Conservative because I believe in American Exceptionalism; I believe that Democracy and the rule of law is man’s best hope on Earth and that our way of life must be defended. … I believe that in the absence of American as the defender of Freedom, the world would dissolve into chaos, leaving Totalitarianism to rule the day and enslave the people.

I am a Conservative because I believe in Open and Free Market Capitalism, and that Capitalism is the engine for economic growth and a nation’s prosperity, not wealth redistribution. …

I’m a Conservative because I believe in the 2nd amendment. I believe that the 2nd amendment is essential if we are to protect the First. …

I’m a Conservative because I am a Citizen of the United States of America, not the world. I believe America is a sovereign nation and that our national security decisions should reflect our interests, not the United Nations. …

I’m a Conservative because I believe in the US Constitution and that it is the Ultimate and Supreme authority on all laws enacted to govern the country. I believe that when a Judiciary becomes rogue and forgets it constitutional role as a Reviewer of Law, and not an Author, that court should be brought under control by the Congress or Abolished …

I am a Conservative because I believe in the provisions of the 10th amendment. I believe that all powers not specifically enumerated by the Constitution to the Federal government belong to the states and thereby to “We the People”.

I am a Conservative because I believe in America. America is a place where anything is possible if you work hard and apply your natural gifts and talents. America is a place where a child can grow up on welfare to become the Leader of the Free World. America is country where your place in society is not cemented at birth because of a less than desirable socio-economic status. In America, the “Dream” is still possible.

I am a Conservative because I understand that 2+2=4, no matter what the State says.

I am a Conservative because I believe it is immoral to steal from one man and give to another. I consider it theft for the government to seize the assets, through taxation and regulation, of private business ventures and use the funds as a piggy bank for social experiments. …

I am a Conservative because I believe in fiscal sanity and a mandated balanced federal budget; if everyday people must cut expenses to balance their home budgets, the federal government must be required to do the same.

I’m a Conservative because I believe in the freedom of choice in education. I’m a proponent of merit pay for teachers that produced results and penalties for ineffective teachers who don’t. I believe parents should have the choice to remove their children from failing public schools, and with State and Federal assistance be able to send their children to private institutions. …

I am a Conservative because I believe America’s greatness is ahead of us, not behind. I believe that if the federal government would get out of the way of the American spirit of Ingenuity, Americans will pull the nation out of this recession and into a real recovery. …

I am a Conservative because I understand that the only way to save the bankrupt system of social security is to privatize it.

I am a Conservative most of all because I believe in individual liberty and the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Click on the link at top to read it in full. It really is a great piece.

By the way, the author of this manifesto? His name is Jamal Greene. “Jamal”? That’s not a typical name for an Obama-opposing tea-partying racist white cracker.

That’s because this Obama-opposing tea partier is in fact a black man. Well slap me on the @$$ and call me Sally!

Stick that in your hash pipes and smoke it, you pathetic race-baiters at NAALCP, MSNBC, and NYT.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

For over a year-and-a-half now Democrat politicians, their accomplices in the media, and President Obama himself have lamented that the “inflammatory” and “incendiary” rhetoric of the Right can have violent consequences. Right-wing talk radio, the Tea Party movement, and certain outspoken Republican politicians who have the nerve to question President Golden Calf (e.g., Sarah Palin) have all been accused of stoking violence against Obama and Democrat Congress. Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano officially had the Tea Party movement labeled terrorists and extremists!

Yet, those predicted acts of violence from the Right never seem to happen, do they?

But you know who we do get plenty of actual instances of violences from? The Left. The Obama-loving, Democrat-voting, conservative-bashing, capitalism-despising, Republican-fearing Left.

And who does the stoking of this violence? Well, Democrat politicians of course. Consider these gems:

Those incitements to violence, my friends, are from the mouth of the President of the United States. The same guy who is constantly worried that any opposition to his destructive policies is enough to drive someone to anti-Obama violence.

It’s bad enough that liberals/Democrats live in an entirely upside-down Bizarro world. It’s even worse when our own president does.

A Houston woman was injured on Friday after a device that appeared to be a homemade bomb exploded when she opened a package in her back yard, authorities said.

The woman, who authorities said was in her 60s, was taken to Memorial Hermann Northwest Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, officials said.

Between 6:30 and 7 p.m., she opened a shoebox-sized box that had been dropped off at her home in the 2100 block of Seamist Court in northwest Houston. …

It wasn’t immediately clear whether the house was targeted, however, Eyewitness News found out the home is owned by an oil company executive.

Gee … who has been stirring up antipathy towards oil executives nonstop since the beginning of the BP oil spill?

But this act of violence is just another of a long humiliating list. Back in March, NewsBusters [h/t Flopping Aces] compiled this marvelous but bone-chilling list of all the actual left-wing violence that has taken place just since Obama has taken office.

It was not the fear of conservative violence that caused Ann Coulter’s speech to be cancelled this week.

It was a liberal who bit the finger off a man who disagreed with him on healthcare.

It was Obama-loving Amy Bishop who took a gun to work and murdered co-workers.

Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building after writing an anti-conservative manifesto.

It was liberals who destroyed AM radio towers outside of Seattle.

It’s liberals who burn down Hummer dealerships.

It was progressive SEIU union thugs who beat a black conservative man who spoke his mind.

It’s doubtful that a conservative fired shots into a GOP campaign headquarters.

In fact, Democrats have no monopoly on having their offices vandalized.

Don’t forget it was Obama’s friend Bill Ayers who used terrorism as a tool for political change. SDS is still radical, with arrests in 2007 and the storming of the CATO Institute in July 2008.

It was a liberal who was sentenced to two years for bringing bombs and riot shields to the Republican National Convention in 2008.

It was a liberal who threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated her Austin-based group that planned to bomb the RNC.

It was liberals who assaulted police in Berkeley.

It was liberals who intimidated and threw rocks through the windows of researchers.

The two Black Panthers who stood outside polls intimidating people with nightsticks were probably not right-wingers.

Every time the G20 gets together, it’s not conservatives who destroy property and cause chaos.

Of the top of my head I can add seven more to this since this list was compiled:

It was a leftist anti-Semite who gunned down innocent people at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

It was Sarah Palin’s church, not Barack Obama’s, that was firebombed with people still inside it (a crime I believe that has yet to be solved.)

It was liberals who rallied with messages of violence against Arizona governor Jan Brewer in protest of their just-passed illegal immigration bill.

It was liberals who destroyed downtown Toronto during last month’s G20 summit.

It was liberals who destroyed Oakland, California—despite the fact that business owners boarded up their windows beforehand—following a judge’s ruling on a white policeman who killed a black civilian.

The New Black Panthers who were caught on tape rambling on about killing white crackers and cracker babies, were not Limbaugh-listening, Beck-watching Tea Partiers.

And it’s a pretty safe bet that the a-hole who put a freaking mail bomb in the mailbox of an oil executive, injuring his wife, was not a Limbaugh-listening, Beck-watching Tea Partier.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

El Rushbo was on a roll yesterday. The first hour was just a series of monologue after brilliant monologue. The audio clip below contains four of those segments, edited, as usual, for long silences, commercial breaks, and other extraneous parts.

In the first segment, Rush wonders out loud why liberals are perpetually unhappy. And rightly so. Here we have a black president, a Democrat House and Senate, the eeeeevil private sector being tarnished and torn while the government gets bigger and bigger, government-run health (s)care passed, plus all of their favorite countries are being coddled, and hated countries being scorned. We are living in a virtual liberal utopia, so why are they still unhappy? Listen to the clip to find out.

The second segment, beginning at around 5:20, is my favorite: a Limbaugh-esque reply to Obama advisor David Axelrod. Axelrod recently made the oft-repeated Democrat claim that the GOP wants to “turn our country backward.” In response, Rush does the unexpected: He agrees with him!

The transcript of the response is here, for anyone who wants to copy it and share it online or by email. It’s that good:

“Recently, Obama advisor David Axelrod stated that America would be going ‘backwards’ if they allowed the GOP to take the majority in 2010”? Well, let me tell you something: I don’t know about you, folks, but I would love to go backwards! I would love to go back about a year and a half.

I’d love to go back when people’s houses had value, and the expectation was that the value would increase every year.

I’d love to go backwards to when we had a 4.7% unemployment rate.

I would love to go backwards to where our taxes were lower.

I would love to go backwards where our health care was affordable and excellent.

I would love to go backwards when our investments had a good chance of growing.

I would love to go backwards when people’s children could get jobs with their expensive college educations.

I would love to go backwards when we had leaders motivating and inspiring young people to seek the world, to seek their dreams.

I would love to go back to that period of time. It’s just a year and a half ago and beyond. Who wants to live in an era where the president and the first lady tell college graduates to screw it? Don’t get into the money making professions. Oh, yes, Mr. Axelrod, I would love to go back!

I would love to go back to a period of time when my president actually liked my country.

I would love to go back to a period of time when my president respected my country and my president was proud of it.

I would love to go back to a period of time where my president was not trying to destroy things that he thinks have been unfair for 20 or 30 years or 230 years.

I would love to go back to a period of time where my president did not look at the United States as the problem in the world.

I would love to go back, Mr. Axelrod, to a period of time where we had leaders who could the United States was exceptional and could indeed be the economic engine and the freedom engine of the world.

I would love to go back, and we don’t have to go back very few, Mr. Axelrod. Just 18, 19 months. Oh yes, I would love to go backwards, Mr. Axelrod.

And speaking of going backwards, isn’t that what Axelrod wants to do? Doesn’t Axelrod want to go back to the sixties? Aren’t he and his buddies perpetually trapped in the idealism and the promise of the 1960s? Perhaps we could say they would love to go back even further, to the time of Marx. Anita Dunn might like to go back to the time of Mao Tse-tung in the 30’s and 40’s! Some of the great dictators of all time are the professed inspiration for many members of the regime. So, yeah, we’re not the only ones that want to go backwards.

Told you it was classic.

Next, at around the 8:24 point, Rush talks about the death of longtime N.Y. Yankees owner George Steinbrenner in a way that he himself admitted was going to drive the liberati into apoplexy, mainly (1) As a capitalist, Steinbrenner knew when to die: before the death tax is reinstated in 2011, and (2) For a “cracker,” Steinbrenner sure made a lot of African-Americans wealthy.

Finally, at around the 10:00 mark, Rush discusses some polls—including a couple in the WashingtonPost of all places—that reports on the growing disillusionment with President Obama among voting blocks which are very important to the Democrats, including independents, environmentalists, the young college-educated, Hispanics, and Jews.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

This speech delivered on the House floor Thursday is delicious. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) gave a much-deserved smackdown to Mexican president Calderon for his highly inappropriate critique of Arizona, as well as to Congressional Democrats for validating Calderon's out-of-line statements and thereby shamefully undermining their own country's sovereignty:

I

On a related note, a big congrats to "Proof" at the Proof Positive blog. When Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media posted a story on McClintock's speech, it was his blog to which linked for the video. It's satisfying to see a fellow "lil' " blogger get this spike in traffic over the weekend:

Here's more on the talk radio circuit and the visit of Mexico's president Calderon.

Last Wednesday, Mark spent the first hour of his show reading selected portions of Mexico's immigration laws and its Constitution. In a nutshell: Mexico's requirements and all-round attitude toward immigration, legal and illegal, are light years more "racist," restrictive, and indifferent towards human rights than Arizona's.

But you won't find discussion, let alone criticism of Mexico's laws by a single liberal/Democrat. That includes President Hope&Change and his feckless gaggle of Keystone Kops like Holder and Napolitano, as well as the sycophantic drones in the mainstream media.

After reading and discussing Mexico's immigration laws, he plays clips of both Calderon and Obama alike tearing apart the United States. That's the blood-boiling hypocrisy we have to deal with in this fading republic of ours, where those in the highest positions of power have actually encouraged anarchy against rule of law, and who have giddily stood with a foreign visitor as he trashes their own country in their presence.

Earlier this week, when Mexican president Calderon visited the U.S., Democrats once again showed their "patriotism." First, Democrats in Congress actually stood and applauded when Calderon stood in the Capitol and bashed the state of Arizona for (gasp!) enforcing laws that the federal government (including the Congress before which he stood) refused to.

Second, while Calderon bashed the U.S. for its alleged racism and human rights violations, President Hope&Change stood there in approving silence.

But don't question their patriotism.

In response to this egregious display of chutzpah by Calderon and of America-hatred by the Democrats, the conservative talk circuit had a lot to say.

Friday, May 21, 2010

I don't normally watch MSM news. But this morning I just happened to be taking out a videotape (I know, old school!) that my kids were watching when Democrat mouthpiece disguised as an anchor George Stephanopoulos brought on Kentucky's new golden child Rand Paul.

What followed was an ass whooping I haven't seen on mainstream TV for a while. The entire segment, it seemed, Steph was interested in one thing and one thing only: playing "Republican gotcha!" And with every question (or more accurately, Democrat talking point being used as a question) Paul refused to play Steph's game. Instead, he through it right back in his face, which was showed more and more consternation as the interview went on.

The video clip is below. Scott Whitlock at NewsBusters has the transcript and commentary. My favorite parts are here, which were delivered by Paul with an air of coolness reminiscent of Bill Buckley:

Good morning, George. Good morning, Robin. When does my honeymoon period start? I had a big victory. I thought I got a honeymoon from you guys in the media.

… I’ve been trashed up and down one network that tends to side with the Democrats. For an entire 24 hours I’ve suffered from them saying, “Oh, he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act.” But, that’s never been my position. So, really, this is a lot about politics. This is about, you know, look. We’re up 20 points in Kentucky. Democrats are going to have a tough time winning down here. So, they’re going to make up a lot of stuff and go forward with that. …

… What I say is that I’m against repealing the Civil Rights Act. I’m against repealing the Fair Housing Act. I’ve never campaigned on that. It’s not part of our platform. And so, what these are red herrings that people are trying to bring up because the Democrats are way behind in Kentucky and are going to have a tough time beating us down here. You know, I mean, if you want to bring up 40-year-old legislation, why don’t you bring me on with Senator Byrd. And we’ll talk about how he filibustered the Civil Rights Act. You know, make him, call him to task for something he actually did, as opposed to calling me to task for something that they insinuate that I might believe that is not true. …

… So, the thing is, what’s going on here is an attempt to vilify us for partisan reasons. Where do your talking points come from? The Democrat National Committee. They also come from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. You know, I’ve just been trashed up and down. And they’re saying things that are untrue. And when they say I’m for repealing the Civil Rights Act, it’s absolutely false. Never been my position. And something I think is basically just politics. …

Right on, right on!

Notice that ABC did their bit to smear the Tea Party, with which Paul is affiliated, by putting on screen the caption: “Tempest for the Tea Party: Candidate Defends Comments on Race.” These liberal hacks still can’t get off this “Tea Party = racist” thing.

I will readily admit to not being a big fan of Ron Paul, and have even heard from some people he has an anti-Semitic streak. But I know precious little about his son and didn't want to prejudge him. All I know is what I witnessed on ABC-TV News this morning was music to my ears. He stood up to the media, refused to accept the premises implied by these politically-loaded questions, and made Stephanopoulos look like a damned fool. We need more people doing this, as long as the mainstream news networks will have them.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Even though the Constitution does not include the words “separation of church and state,” liberals have long treated that concept as a hallowed fundamental doctrine of constitutional law. But no more. With the recent introduction of new Senate cap and trade legislation, ultraliberal supporters Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and others have now completely abandoned that doctrine in their quest to establish global warming dogma as the official, established religion of the United States.

Under that legislation, everyone in America will be forced to tithe to the new religion through higher prices for electricity, gasoline, natural gas, coal, home heating oil, jet fuel, food (especially meat), and every product produced or transported with such energy sources. Indeed, prices will soar high enough to reduce fossil fuel use and the resulting carbon dioxide emissions back to the per capita levels of 1870!

The legislation will further force Americans to engage in ritual sacrifices to the established religion, slashing back on powerful, roomy cars and SUVS, air conditioning, heat, PCs, laptops, big screen TVs, cell phones, iPods, backyard barbecues, manufacturing jobs, and traditional American prosperity. They will be forced to worship the modern, hip, pagan dogma with smaller “carbon footprints.” If they do not profess their true belief, they will be shouted out of public life as troglodyte “deniers,” just as those who did not faithfully maintain membership in the established Church of England were disqualified from holding public office.

But if they do faithfully follow the global warming catechism of cap and trade, they will be rewarded with the eternal salvation of a reduction in the projected rise of global temperatures of 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050, based on the UN’s own climate models. Hallelujah! Praise the AlGore! ...

… Whatever you do, the elites tell us, don’t profile! But is that even humanly possible? In my earlier work in hospital nursing, we profiled from the minute we clocked in for our shift. We didn’t call it profiling, of course. When I worked in the ICU, we called it “assessment.” In the ER, it’s known as “triage.” …

Profiling saves lives. Many years ago I was working nights in an ICU at a county hospital. One of our patients, a young gang member, had been shot by a rival gang. We were warned that members of that gang were threatening to come to the hospital to “finish the job.” During that shift, I was very grateful that hospital security was actively profiling everyone who came into the hospital, looking for young males of a specific race who fit the profile of that gang. The last thing I and my co-workers wanted was for a gang member to sneak in while security was questioning the elderly wife of the patient in the next bed.

The way I understand the Arizona law, police officers are expected to verify the immigration status of people they encounter during the performance of their jobs. All sorts of media, entertainment, and political stars are working themselves into a tizzy, positive that cops all over Arizona are going to start hassling random Hispanics, demanding to see their papers. As President Obama says, “If you are an Hispanic-American in Arizona, your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, your going to be harassed[.]”

I find this scenario ridiculous, because if the job of policeman is anything at all like the job of a nurse, then they don’t have time to start hassling toddlers getting ice cream. Arizona is plagued with drug cartels and kidnappings, much of it tied to illegal immigrants. Believe me, the cops are busy enough. Besides, I have a feeling that the police are just as talented at profiling as nurses are. For the cops, appropriate profiling is a matter of survival. Listening to that profile instinct during a routine traffic stop can mean life or death. …

As a candidate, Barack Obama wowed the world. He went to Berlin and gave a speech at their victory monument. It was a curious venue for such a speech. But a million Germans came out to hear him. It was a phenomenal scene. No one remembers what he said there, but it was quite a show. A year later, when he returned to the continent, as president, he spoke at Normandy. No one can quite recall what Obama said, but everyone remembers what Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said: “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above—above the world, he’s sort of God.”

If you are hailed as a “sort of God,” it’s no wonder that your head gets turned. You don’t want to seem puffed up, or succumb to the sin of pride. So you start apologizing. Not for yourself, but for your country. America has been arrogant, you tell the world. America has tried to go it alone. America has not sufficiently respected the rest of the world. And you bow. You bow a lot. …

What we are seeing is a nation standing into danger. We are watching as the United States is publicly and internationally humiliated. Our idol worship of an inexperienced and ill-equipped leader has blinded us to the mounting dangers in a world of dangers.

It would be hard to say which specific foreign policy of the Obama administration is worst. Iran sanctions? Russian relations? Attacks on Israel for Jewish settlements in Jerusalem? Trashing the special relationship with Britain? Insulting the Canadians in their own capital? Failure to secure the border with Mexico? We have an entire menu of foreign policy disasters to consider. Maybe if your perspective is from above it all, standing up there as sort of God, it looks better. For those of us with our feet firmly on the ground, it looks less heavenly.

… Our current leaders have apparently given up their “laser like focus” on creating or saving jobs. That hasn’t been working out so well for them, being completely ignorant in the ways of business. Instead, they now appear to be focused on creating or saving a whole bunch of slackers. This is not the first time Pelosi has said it either. She uttered much the same drivel back in March, prior to the passage of the health care bill that had to be passed before we could see what’s in it:

“Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.”

That’s right. Working is for stuffy old fuddy-duddies and inartistic Philistines. Plus, the kids these days don’t know how to protest; we need more drum circles, man.

I couldn’t put my finger on exactly why this irked me so much. I mean, even more so than usual. I knew it couldn’t just be the putrid stench of entitlement mentality emanating from Pelosi, although that was, of course, a major part of it. I finally realized what it was; it reminds me of the tree squatters at Berkeley. College kids, full of smug ™, who think they are so much better and smarter than you, all while mooching off of their parents and bringing their laundry home for mommy to do.

The recent vile and infuriating apology to China – CHINA, of all places – for Arizona’s new immigration law fits much the same mold. Jay Nordlinger, of National Review Online, had a similar thought:

I hope I have read that incorrectly, or am interpreting it incorrectly. Did we, the United States, talking to a government that maintains a gulag, that denies people their basic rights, that in all probability harvests organs, apologize for the new immigration law in Arizona? Really, really? …

Do you ever get the idea that our government is a bunch of left-wing undergraduates come to power?

Yes. Because that is exactly what they are.

Obama is just like the new breed of hipsters who are on food stamps so they can shop at the oh-so-hip Whole Foods. Arugula is a right! And have you seen the price of it? No wonder they have made 26 year old adults comparable to children, who must remain on their parents’ insurance policies. They are still children. Left wing radical children, but children nonetheless. It’s mean to expect people to act like adults and work for things! Obama, and his administration, have persisted in that left-wing undergraduate vein, only they are dangerously now in power. …

The essence of liberal bankruptcy can be reduced to two words: unintended consequences. Quite simply, the unintended consequences of liberalism are the result of people behaving like people actually behave—instead of how liberals believe they should behave. Perhaps the most egregious example of the left’s terminal disconnect from reality is health care “reform.” Two news stories reveal what happens when common sense loses out to ideological idiocy.

The first story comes from the Congressional newspaper The Hill. Apparently it has dawned on some people that adding 32 million people to the health care rolls—note I said people, as opposed to American citizens—might engender some unintended consequences with regard to their impact on “emergency rooms already crammed beyond capacity, according to experts on healthcare facilities.”

“Everybody expected that one of the initial impacts of reform would be less pressure on emergency departments; it’s going to be exactly the opposite over the next four to eight years,” said Rich Dallam, healthcare partner at NBBJ, an architectural firm which designs healthcare facilities.

Not everybody, Mr. Dallam. Only the clueless liberals in Congress and the White House who foisted this package on the substantial majority of Americans who wanted no part of it. …

… All this devotion which the left pretends to have for free speech is just like every other profession of values by the left: it is pure fraud, smirking lies, and measured injustice. Consider the position that Elena Kagan has taken toward free speech. She wrote in 1996 that free speech could be restricted if it directly or indirectly incited people to do harm, and Kagan noted the famous example of someone yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. She equates that with the notorious “hate speech” invented by the left. …

The left displays a very curious attitude toward the rights of different sorts of speakers. “Hate speech” is almost always directed against the lonely individual conservative, who has no wealth or power to protect him. Conservatives have been noting for forty-one years that government licensed television network channels lie about conservatives, defame conservative leaders, and construct crude caricatures of conservatives as a group. Worse, for most of those forty-one years, the networks scrupulously avoided criticizing each other for ideological bigotry, acting like a true monopoly. The left defended the right of multi-billion dollar corporate giants to savage the lives of conservatives by malicious mendacity. The left never said a word about these mammoth business empires hurting the public.

So when does the left get concerned about opinions reaching tens of millions of Americans? When someone like Rush Limbaugh takes the largely ignored and financially modest medium of A.M. talk radio and, against a torrent of abuse and many boycotts, finds a profoundly resonating voice among the conservative majority of America. Then—only then!—the ancient “Fairness Doctrine” rears its peculiar head. When the identical triplets of CBS, NBC, and ABC had the same news, the same entertainment slant, the same everything—which meant conservative ideas and beliefs were scrupulously purged, the left thought the Fairness Doctrine something akin to censorship. Only when the other side gets heard does the doctrine have meaning.

The left is utterly wedded to thought control. Like all sibling totalitarianisms, the left in America is addicted to power and repelled by truth. The creation of officially defined oppressors and officially defined victims determines who has rights and who does not. The totalitarian narcotic of “Social Justice,” the drug of choice for Hitler, Stalin, Father Coughlin, and Sir Oswald Moseley, dulls the people into a twilight land in which “Freedom is Slavery” and free speech too.

Assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner is probably not the first Obama State Department official to badmouth America in front of foreign delegations. He was just dumb enough to get caught.

Last week, the former head agitator at the transnationalist outfit Human Rights First trashed our country’s human-rights record to Chinese government officials.

Posner is an unrepentant open-borders radical who has long fought immigration enforcement and vociferously opposed post-9/11 counterterrorism measures to detain enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. He was active in supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court, an American-sovereignty-undermining tribunal that would trump U.S. judicial authority over war crimes and “crimes against humanity.” …

The Arizona law is indeed being “debated in our own society” — mostly by a parade of willful ignoramuses from Homeland Security Department secretary Janet Napolitano to Attorney General Eric Holder to State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley, all three of whom have gone on television to attack the Arizona law and then admitted that they have yet to read the legislation. ...

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Like many other sentient Americans, I was absolutely disgusted upon hearing that ASSistant Secretary of State Michael Posner apologized to China—China!—for alleged American human rights violations, most notably the Arizona illegal immigration bill and its “potential discrimination.”

… America has a discrimination problem when a candidate for the U.S. Senate flat out says the American people aren't, “let me be clear,” smart enough to understand legislation that has removed their ability to make their own health care decisions , especially since we read every page of all 7 competing bills long before she opened her fork-tongued mouth.

America has a discrimination problem when freshman (and soon to be unemployed)Congresscriminal Alan Grayson stands in the middle of a family restaurant and screams at his constituents simply because they don't agree with him.

America has a discrimination problem when Senate majority leader Harry Reid (Dickhead, Nevada – but not for long! ) refers to peaceful American citizens exercising their Constitutional right to free speech as “'evil-mongers' using 'lies, innuendo and rumor,' to drown out rational debate .”

America has a discrimination problem when the Wicked Witch of Congress calls these same people Nazis and later admits that she would have no pangs of regret about arresting any one of them who refuses to buy health insurance .

America has a discrimination problem when the men and women who shed blood and relinquish their personal freedom in the service and defense of this country are considered potential “right-wing extremists ” and enemies of the Regime.

America has a discrimination problem when an American citizen supports the head of an Islamic terrorism organization that would prefer that all Jews gather in Israel so he and others don't have to hunt them down to complete a second Holocaust .

America has a discrimination problem when Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano say on camera they haven't read a bill that enforces their own immigration laws, while endlessly bullying a governor who has decided that if they won't do their jobs she will, while a public school teacher openly advocates revolution against the United States of America and the leftwing media and federal government (I know: there's a difference?) stand by, quiet as church mice.

America has a discrimination problem when the pResident of the United States dismisses a powerful movement of fed up people, who are black and white and young and old and liberal and independent and libertarian and conservative and rich and poor and all persuasions in between, as “folks waving tea bags around ," or, even more representative of the Liar in Chief's “civility,” lovingly demonizes us as “that wing" of the Republican Party, the “tea-baggers.”

America has a discrimination problem when the threat of a boot on the throat is the perfect phrase to describe the people who dangle our nation's future for ransom over a cliff overlooking an abyss.

Absolutely brilliant. May I also add:

America has a discrimination problem when the Democrat-media complex immediately blames confrontations involving police on conservative white Christian males, without having any of the facts. (Remember Skip Gates?)

America has a discrimination problem when the Democrat-media complex immediately blames a terrorist attack (botched or successful) on conservative white Christian males, without having any of the facts.

America has a discrimination problem when its citizens voted for a person to be the leader of the free world not on the basis of his character (of which he has none) but primarily because of his race.

America has a discrimination problem when all its political and media elite do when discussing a prospective cabinet member or SCOTUS nominee is fixate on their gender, race, ethnicity, and/or sexual orientation, rather than whether they are qualified and principled to successfully do the freaking job.

“We all know what happens in Arizona when you don’t have ID: ‘Adios, amigos!’”

This outrageous disrespectful swipe at the law-abiding Arizona not only makes Obama look even more unpresidential than he already is, but also exposes him as the third member of his administration (after Napolitano and Holder) who has clearly not read the freaking 10-page bill. [UPDATE: Make that fourth]

In light of this issue is this latest case of blatant sanctimonious liberal hypocrisy:

Before greeting President Hope&Change at their graduation, seniors at Kalamazoo Central High School will have to “Show their pa-puhs!”

The White House appears to be laying the groundwork for President Barack Obama to shake the hand of each senior at Kalamazoo Central High School’s commencement ceremony next month.

Seniors are being asked to provide their birthdates, Social Security numbers and citizen status to the Secret Service so background checks could be performed. Such a check is required for anyone who gets within an arm’s length of the president, students were told at their senior breakfast Friday.

K-Central seniors also were told Friday that graduation tickets will come from the White House, and the tickets will have bar codes to heighten accountability and prevent them from being sold. “Any irregularities can be traced back to the student who was given the ticket,” Boehme said. …

It’s too bad somebody can’t convince these guys to at least pretend that the borders are simply one big entrance to meet the president. The Obama administration is so against checking papers that they’re even refusing to check the paper upon which Arizona’s immigration law is written, but K’zoo Central grads will have to present their papers nonetheless.

I’ll give $10 toward the college fund of the first graduate who, when asked for his or her citizen status, replies “Him first” and sends the whole school into emergency Birther lockdown.